RAJ PAL Vs. DHARAMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24.6.1989. The Appellant sustained injuries on his right arm, fractured his right leg resulting into its shortening by 6 cm. (as per disability certificate Ex. PW-6/H). The Appellant also suffered a head injury and he stupor arose for a period of 5 days after the accident. After the accident, the Appellant was taken to SDN Hospital. He was referred to LNJP Hospital and then to GB Pant Hospital where he remained admitted till 4.7.1989. He was discharged from the Hospital by discharge summary Ex. PW-6/A. The Appellant then remained admitted in Anand Polyclinic, Ghaziabad upto 8.7.1989. He was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he remained admitted from 21.7.1989 to 2.8.1989. The Appellant remained on leave upto 2.1.1990. The impugned judgment is challenged on the finding of contributory negligence (as the Appellant was held guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 30%) on the quantum of compensation.

(2.) It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Appellant; the accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DDL-4845 sudden application of brakes by the first Respondent, which was owned by the second Respondent (MCD). On quantum of compensation, it is contended that the compensation awarded is too low and meager. The Appellant has not been awarded any compensation on account of loss of earning capacity and loss of amenities in life in spite of the fact that he suffered 40% disability in respect of his right lower limb resulting in its shortening by 6 cm. The compensation awarded for conveyance and special diet was also on the lower side.

(3.) On the other hand it is submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent that the accident took place on account of Appellant's negligence as is evident from the certified copy of the judgment dated 7.6.1997 mark 'A' whereby the first Respondent was acquitted in respect of the criminal case under Section 279/ 338, IPC. It is contended by learned Counsel for the second Respondent that the Appellant was working as a Constable in Delhi Police; he has not led any reliable evidence to prove that his promotion was affected on account of injuries suffered in the accident resulting into any financial loss. It is submitted that the accident took place in the year 1989 and considering the value of the currency at the time of award of Rs. 5,000 towards conveyance and special diet was just and reasonable.